CONSTITUTION I

A.Y. 1819 – DEAN CANDELARIA

hearing in the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal
Governments and Cities.
TOPIC Sec. 16 of Art. 6. - On its second reading in the Senate, substantial amendments were
Duty to Keep Journals and Records introduced by Senator Tolentino, which were approved by the said
House.
CASE NO. G.R. No. L-23475 - The bill that was submitted for approval to the President did not
CASE NAME Astorga v. Villegas contain the Tolentino amendments. Instead, what it contained were
Roxas’ amendments.
PONENTE Makalintal, C .J - It was only after the President’s approval that Senator Tolentino
released a press statement that the law was a wrong version of the bill
PETITIONER Herminio Astorga, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of actually passed by Senate because it did not embody the amendments
Manila introduced in the Senate Hearing.
- The President withdrew his signature from the law as it was not
RESPONDENT Antonio Villegas, in his capacity as Mayor of approved by both Houses of Congress.
Manila, et. al - Antonio Villegas issued circulars to the city government and business
establishments to disregard RA 4065.
TYPE OF Petition for Mandamus, Injunction and/or - Five members of the city police force who had been assigned to then
CASE Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory or Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga were recalled by the Chief of Police
Prohibitory Injunction on order from the Mayor due to the invalidity of the Act.
- In reaction to these events, Vice-Mayor Astorga filed a petition to this
MEMBER Aliyah Rosh Cu court. A Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Court
against Petitioner from exercising any powers of an Acting Mayor
ISSUE that was conferred by RA 4065, as the respondent was going abroad
1. W/N RA 4065 actually became law since it was not the bill that was on an official trip.
passed by Congress and that it lack the approved Tolentino
Amendment. RATIO DECIDENDI
1. W/N RA 4065 actually became law since it was not the bill that was
RELEVANT FACTS passed by Congress and that it lack the approved Tolentino
- House Bill 9266 was passed as a law and became RA 4065 entitled, Amendment. NO.
“An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor
of the City of Manila, Further Amending for the Purpose Sections • RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill that was passed
Ten and Eleven of Republic Act Numbered Four Hundred Nine, as by the Senate, and that the entries in the Journal of that body and not
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the
Manila”. Issue.
- In the process of its legislation, HB 9266 was filed in the House of • The enrolled bill doctrine is based mainly on the respect due to the
Representatives and was passed on the third reading without co-equal and independent departments, which requires the judicial
amendments. The bill was sent to the Senate for its Concurrence. department to accept as having passed Congress, all bills
Minor amendments were introduced by Senator Roxas during its authenticated in the manner stated. If the attestation is absent and the

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819 – DEAN CANDELARIA
same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may
resort to the journals and other records of the Congress for proof of
its due enactment.
• The "enrolled bill" theory was relied upon merely to bolster the
ruling on the jurisdictional question, the reasoning being that "if a
political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the
political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds
the judges under the 'enrolled bill rule' born of that respect."
• Congress has devised a system for authenticating bills duly
approved, by the signatures of their respective presiding officers and
secretaries printed on the copy of the approved bill. The function of
this attestation therefore is not of approval.
• The (1935) Constitution is silent as to what shall constitute proof of
due enactment of a bill. It does not require the presiding officers to
certify to the same. But the said Constitution does contain the
following provisions:
o Sec. 10 (4). "Each House shall keep a Journal of its
proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may in its judgment require secrecy;
and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request
of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the
Journal."
o Sec. 21 (2). "No bill shall be passed by either House unless
it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its final form
furnished its Members at least three calendar days prior to
its passage, except when the President shall have certified to
the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last
reading of a bill no amendment thereof shall be allowed, and
the question upon its passage shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered on the Journal."
• As far as the Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing inviolable
in the certification made by the presiding officers. It is merely a
mode of authentication. The law making process ends when the bill
is approved by both Houses, and the certification does not add to the
validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its
passage.
• Approval of Congress is essential and not the signatures of the
presiding officers.
• Astorga’s claim that the attestation of the presiding officers of
Congress is conclusive proof of the bill’s due enactment has been
neutralized by the fact that the Senate President declared his signature
on the bill to be invalid, and issued a subsequent certification that the
invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had earlier signed
had never been approved by the Senate.
• Obviously, this declaration has more weight that the attestation which
it invalidated.
• Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer, and consequently
there being no enrolled bill to speak of, what evidence is there to
determine whether or not the bill had been duly enacted?
• In such a case the entries in the journal should be consulted.
• The Journal of the proceedings is no ordinary record. The
Constitution requires it. And the Court can inquire whether the text of
the House Bill signed by the President is the same text passed by both
Houses. The Senate Journal discloses that substantial and lengthy
amendments by Tolentino were introduced on the floor and approved
by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the
President.
• As a result, the Court is inclined to declare that the bill was not duly
enacted and therefore did not become law. In fact, both the Senate
President and the President of the Philippines withdrew their
signatures therein.
• This simply means that when the presiding officer repudiates his
signature in the alleged enrolled bill, then the journal prevails.
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Wherefore the petition is denied and the so-called Republic Act No. 4065
entitled "AN ACT DEFINING THE POWERS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
THE VICE-MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, FURTHER AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS TEN AND ELEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED NINE, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE REVISED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MANILA" is
declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law.
The temporary restraining order dated April 28, 1965 is hereby made
permanent. No pronouncement as to costs.
2
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819 – DEAN CANDELARIA
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT of a bill no amendment thereof shall be allowed, and the question upon its
• Enrolled Bill Doctrine: As the President has no authority to passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered
approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the on the Journal."
custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of
the Senate, and of the Chief Executive, carries, on its face, a solemn
assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the
government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and
executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress.
• Approval of Congress, not signatures of the officers, is essential
• If the signatories repudiates their signatures on the enrolled bill, it is
no longer considered authentic and the journal shall be conclusive.

RELEVANT LAWS
Sec. 16. of Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution
- xxx
- (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be
entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its
proceedings.
- xxx
(Sec. 16 of Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution was not mentioned in the case
since this case was decided on April 30, 1974, but it’s listed under this
provision in the 1987 Constitution to show how a Journal works.)

Sec. 10 and 21 of the 1935 Constitution

Sec. 10 (4). "Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in its judgment
require secrecy; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request
of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal."

Sec. 21 (2). "No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been
printed and copies thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least
three calendar days prior to its passage, except when the President shall have
certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading